Mormon Tabernacle Choir singer quits because she claims Trump represents tyranny and fascism

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks Maureen.   Vort, you said if we want to know how someone feels ask them. In the part of the article here that Maureen quoted Sis. Chamberlain says she had no desire for fame or notierity. I am going to take her at her word.

I haven't read evry story on this, but what I have seen is a bunch of media jumping on the bandwagon, and repeating the same quotes from Sis. Chamberlain. It doesn't sound like there have been interviews, nor does she appear to be fanning the flames of the attention she has received. Her Facebook page is down, if she really wanted attention the thing to do would be to keep the Facebook page up and share these articles and comment on them. What I see is her stepping back...not seeking lime light.

 

[zil]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

 I think highly of you, too, as you know.

  And here I thought you were opposed to marijuana use...

[Guest Godless]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:32 AM, anatess2 said:

This statement is a by-product of watching too much CNN.  There has NEVER been a time when Trump (nor Cruz who held a tougher stance on Islamic terrorism than Trump) showed that they were far too eager to make ALL Muslims the enemy in the eyes of the American people.

Here's his speech from Dec 8 of 2015.  Well before the first primary election.  Now, I want you to point out from this speech where he expressed hatred for Muslims or where he stated that ALL Muslims are the enemy - without going to CNN commentators for their spin on what he said (he pointed to the press cameras in the beginning of the speech to express his disdain for these spin-masters).  Remember - when he says AMERICANS they include every single American including Muslims and also remember that when he says JIHADIST they are all Muslims.

 

(Sorry it took me so long to respond. It's been a crazy week.)

You're right, I don't need any external commentary whatsoever to make my point with this video. First, he quotes his previous statement saying "Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US until our country's representatives can figure out what ... is going on. We have no choice". [applause] I've stated before that I don't oppose screening and restrictions on immigrants (of any religion, mind you) immigrating to the US from conflict nations. That's not what Trump is saying here. He's talking about a block on all Muslims entering the US. That's religious profiling at its finest, and his voter base ate it up. 

After he made the statement above, he went on to mention a poll from the Center for Security Policy, an organization that dedicates itself to finding and exposing Jihadists in the US. That in and of itself isn't so bad. After all, radical Islam has been the source of many of our most violent tragedies in this country (and elsewhere) lately. So let's take a closer look at this organization before we automatically dismiss it as Islamaphobic. This is an organization that believes that there's a legitimate movement in the US to establish Sharia Law [source], an idea that Trump himself tries to validate in this speech. This is an organization led by a man who honestly believes Obama is a closet Muslim [source] and frames it as part of his Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy. The takeaway here is that if you're not a 100% Americanized and assimilated Muslim, the CSP finds you to be a person of interest at best and a traitor at worst. Doesn't sound like the kind of people Trump should be taking religious statistics from.

I don't honestly believe that Trump himself hates all Muslims, but a significant portion of his voters do. Like I said in my previous post, there needs to be a balance between identifying the enemy and protecting innocent affiliates from hate. Trump has failed miserably at that, and this video (posted by you) is perfect proof of it. He's pandering to a base of voters who don't understand Islam and fear it as a result. Instead of promoting understanding of a worldview different from their own, Trump is validating their irrational prejudices. Trump himself may not be hateful, but his message has been sowing hate for months. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Godless

[Maureen]

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Okay, so she intentionally put in for the lottery, so she could raise public awareness.  With this we have premeditation.  She fully intended to use the official church choir's reputation to promote her "Trump is immoral" political message.

How do you interpret this from the article? I read it where not volunteering was not good enough for her that is why she resigned. How does putting her name in a lottery for an event she does not want to attend make sense?

M.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

How does putting her name in a lottery for an event she does not want to attend make sense?

It doesn't. And yet, that is precisely what she did.

[Maureen]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

It doesn't. And yet, that is precisely what she did.

Not true. I listened to the attached video in the article and she specifically says that they were given a choice to sign up for attending the inauguration Yes or No and she said No - she even mentions it twice. Listen to the video.

M.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Not true. I listened to the attached video in the article and she specifically says that they were given a choice to sign up for attending the inauguration Yes or No and she said No - she even mentions it twice. Listen to the video.

You are right. I was wrong. I misinterpreted the article's wording. Thank you for the correction.

I still disagree with her grandstanding and her attempt to use the Choir to further her own political agenda. But she did not sign up for the inauguration just so that she could quit. That was a bad inference on my part (actually, a misunderstanding of the wording of the article). Sincerely, thank you for the correction, Maureen.

[anatess2]

52 minutes ago, Godless said:

(Sorry it took me so long to respond. It's been a crazy week.)

You're right, I don't need any external commentary whatsoever to make my point with this video. First, he quotes his previous statement saying "Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US until our country's representatives can figure out what ... is going on. We have no choice". [applause] I've stated before that I don't oppose screening and restrictions on immigrants (of any religion, mind you) immigrating to the US from conflict nations. That's not what Trump is saying here. He's talking about a block on all Muslims entering the US. That's religious profiling at its finest, and his voter base ate it up. 

After he made the statement above, he went on to mention a poll from the Center for Security Policy, an organization that dedicates itself to finding and exposing Jihadists in the US. That in and of itself isn't so bad. After all, radical Islam has been the source of many of our most violent tragedies in this country (and elsewhere) lately. So let's take a closer look at this organization before we automatically dismiss it as Islamaphobic. This is an organization that believes that there's a legitimate movement in the US to establish Sharia Law [source], an idea that Trump himself tries to validate in this speech. This is an organization led by a man who honestly believes Obama is a closet Muslim [source] and frames it as part of his Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy. The takeaway here is that if you're not a 100% Americanized and assimilated Muslim, the CSP finds you to be a person of interest at best and a traitor at worst. Doesn't sound like the kind of people Trump should be taking religious statistics from.

I don't honestly believe that Trump himself hates all Muslims, but a significant portion of his voters do. Like I said in my previous post, there needs to be a balance between identifying the enemy and protecting innocent affiliates from hate. Trump has failed miserably at that, and this video (posted by you) is perfect proof of it. He's pandering to a base of voters who don't understand Islam and fear it as a result. Instead of promoting understanding of a worldview different from their own, Trump is validating their irrational prejudices. Trump himself may not be hateful, but his message has been sowing hate for months. 

Religious profiling is not an issue as a temporary measure.  This is not a Hate position.  I hold this position.  And I'm an immigrant to the US.  The plain fact of the matter is that while not all Muslims are Jihadists, all Jihadists are Muslims.  Therefore, it is a very viable solution to stop all Muslim immigration until America gets its act straight and have the ability to differentiate a Muslim from a Jihadist.  Only political posturing would make this kind of position socially unacceptable.  There is no Human Right to Immigrate to the United States.

I'm not going to address CSP.  I see Trump as pragmatic.  I worked with Bosnian refugees for 3 years.  My job is to help them assimilate to American society.  I have not met a single Bosnian in those 3 years who were resistant to assimilation.  Rather, they were all eager and excited to become Americans that a lot of them wouldn't even show up to my Bosnian-get-together themed parties.  So yes, I would suspect any immigrant who resists assimilation.  If they refuse to live as Americans, then why immigrate?  I am not American.  I hold the principle that I am Filipino.  But I live in America.  And I assimilate into American society even as I retain my Filipino culture.

Sharia Law, just like Canon Law (for Catholics) is not separable from the religion.  All devout Catholics adhere to Canon Law just like all devout Muslims adhere to Sharia Law.  Therefore, even as America legalized divorce and abortion, in Canon Law they are still mortal sins.  But, Catholics in America hold the legal supremacy of the US Constitution over Canon Law.  But even then, when a priest commits a crime, it is always the Vatican's position to extradite the priest into the Vatican, as per Canon Law, a priest who commits grievous sin has to go through the extensive repentance process set forth by the Papacy which is not possible when he is in secular jail.  I'm sure you remember the upheaval when Americans found these Catholic priests who committed pedophilia sequestered into seclusion instead of given up to the courts.  In the same manner, devout Catholics will have the tendency to vote their conscience at the ballot box by promoting Canon Law.  This is the same for Muslims and Sharia Law or the Halakha for the Jews.  This is why Israel puts Jewish settlements in their occupied territories so that Jews retain majority in these areas preventing Muslims from holding majority influence in Israeli Law.  The problem is, while Canon Law is the same everywhere it is found as it has one source - the Vatican, and Jewish law is the same everywhere it is found, Sharia Law is not.  Sharia Law holds different positions in different Muslim States.  Muslims, even in a tiny country like the Philippines hold different versions of Sharia - some see violent jihad as the way to Allah, others promote peaceful conversion.  There is no singular authority on Sharia.  Trying to weed out who is who is tricky.  Fortunately, Muslims are a small minority so they don't have any effect on Republic Law.  The problem in the Philippines is the same elsewhere - unassimilated Muslims who form their own Muslim communities within the country being taught to convert Catholics by the sword as part of their religion.  So you have little kids as young as 12 years old shooting Catholics on the head from a drive-by motorcycle.  America don't see this because of their unparalleled law enforcers.  But, as you can see with all these "home grown terrorists", this is starting to taking root even in the US.

So yeah, many of the left reads my statements here and call it Islamophobic.  It is not.  It is simply a pragmatic, no partisan politics spin on how I see the world.  And I find it refereshing that an American political figure is actually brave enough to express the same views even as it is not politically correct.  So yes, I would cheer.

You can disagree with the position.  It still doesn't make me - or those like me - hateful or Islamophobic or have an irrational prejudice.  And frankly, it is the hardest part of this election.  Having people even right here on Mormonhub, even people I highly respect, paint me with that brush.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

43 minutes ago, Maureen said:

How do you interpret this from the article? I read it where not volunteering was not good enough for her that is why she resigned. How does putting her name in a lottery for an event she does not want to attend make sense?

M.

I did not watch any videos.  I only read this:

 

Quote

 

No, it was a "moral issue." That's why Chamberlin, a Utah County voice teacher who has been with the famed choir for five years, could not simply skip putting her name in the lottery that would choose volunteers to sing at the Jan. 20 event.

She wanted instead to raise public awareness about what she sees as the incoming president's lurking fascism and potential damage to her beloved chorus's reputation.

If she denies putting her name in the lottery, than I'm wrong.  It appears from this that she felt she could not skip putting her name in.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Maureen]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

I did not watch any videos.  I only read this:...

Watch the video, she is very clear about what she did and why she did it.

M.

[Vort]

I believe that the clumsy wording was trying to convey that Chamberlin felt that she could not merely opt out of the lottery. That wasn't enough. She had to make her feelings known in a more forceful manner than simply declining to participate.

Which I still think is disloyal, but not on the same level as intentionally volunteering for a slot just so that she could be higher profile when she quit.

[prisonchaplain]

To me the whole issue was that she put her name in the lottery hoping to get selected, so she could withdraw from the choir and make a statement. That is what I got from the SLC article. I can't watch videos from my office, so if this is wrong, and she did not do so--she only resigned and posted it on FB, then I'm far less inclined to blame her.

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

To me the whole issue was that she put her name in the lottery hoping to get selected, so she could withdraw from the choir and make a statement. That is what I got from the SLC article. I can't watch videos from my office, so if this is wrong, and she did not do so--she only resigned and posted it on FB, then I'm far less inclined to blame her.

She did not put her name in the lottery, she did the exact opposite, as the video shows.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

What a miserable experience. Most of the time I'm a bit ahead of my colleagues, because they get their news from TV and radio, whereas I use news sites.  Today I got punked by SLC Tribune.

Edited January 5, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

To me the whole issue was that she put her name in the lottery hoping to get selected, so she could withdraw from the choir and make a statement. That is what I got from the SLC article. I can't watch videos from my office, so if this is wrong, and she did not do so--she only resigned and posted it on FB, then I'm far less inclined to blame her.

Actually, I'm inclined the same way.

I think a Facebook announcement that you're quitting the Mormon Tabernacle Choir because you don't like Trump is over the top and more than a little self-righteous. That's not how things are (or should be) done in the Church, not by a faithful member who claims to believe in the Restoration. Imperfections, real or perceived, are not dealt with by applying public pressure or resorting to public shaming, even if "public" was intended only to be a Facebook message to friends.

But that's a whole lot different than volunteering for a slot so that you can make a bigger splash when you quit.

[Vort]

Sister Chamberlin might rethink her position once she sees that Harry Reid agrees with her.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4765449-155/nevadas-harry-reid-sings-praises-of

[prisonchaplain]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

She did not put her name in the lottery, she did the exact opposite, as the video shows.

M.

Thanks @Maureen.  Hate to let go of passionate opinions, but when the facts get in the way that righteous indignation quickly becomes water under the bridge.  :-)

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sister Chamberlin might rethink her position once she sees that Harry Reid agrees with her.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4765449-155/nevadas-harry-reid-sings-praises-of

I don't know.  I wouldn't be surprised if she's pleased beyond measure.  I highly doubt Romney would agree with her.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

You are right. I was wrong. I misinterpreted the article's wording. Thank you for the correction.

I still disagree with her grandstanding and her attempt to use the Choir to further her own political agenda. But she did not sign up for the inauguration just so that she could quit. That was a bad inference on my part (actually, a misunderstanding of the wording of the article). Sincerely, thank you for the correction, Maureen.

That right there is why I admire you bro. 

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

What's not "baloney" is that if she was doing the same thing for Obama, no one would have a problem with it. 

I would.

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

She did not put her name in the lottery, she did the exact opposite, as the video shows.

M.

You are incorrect.  She put in for the lottery and was selected.  I have this information directly from my friend who is a current choir member.  This was her response when I asked:

"We were given the option to go. They chose from those that opted yes."

She submitted her name and was selected to go.  Based on her interview she already had reservations about this trip and I believe was pursuing the "big splash" agenda mentioned above.

I watched a video and I did not hear her say anything about the lottery, maybe I missed it or watched a different video.  If there is a vid where she is claiming not to have put in for the lottery please direct me to it.  I would like to see it.  That would contradict what my friend in MoTab says happened.

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by mirkwood

[NightSG]

52 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I would.

Yes, but since people with horrible taste in hats aren't a protected minority, you wouldn't count.  

Edited January 5, 2017 by NightSG

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Yes, but since people with horrible taste in hats aren't a protected minority, you wouldn't count.  

How dare you say that about @mirkwood! 

Besides he has a horrible taste in music, sports, politics and movies.  Not hats.

Edited January 5, 2017 by MormonGator

[mirkwood]

Here goes another @MormonGator thread derail...

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Here goes another @MormonGator thread derail...

I'll be good.